Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the anonymous-cowards-in-the-winners-circle dept

The most insightful comment of the week won by a wider margin than any I've ever seen before. I actually think this comment may have received more votes than any other comment on the site ever. And it's from an Anonymous Coward (who says anonymous comments are bad?), in response to another insightful comment from Pjerky, who suggested that there should be an international law saying that no country has sovereign control over the internet. That comment actually got a lot of insightful votes itself, but not enough to get to the top of the list. What did get votes aplenty was this response from an Anonymous Coward who laid out why governments view the internet and free speech as a threat, and why free speech as a principle is more important than most people realize:

Good luck with that...

As long as there are governments that consider "information" or "content" to be dangerous, we'll be dealing with this.

If you stand for unfettered freedom-of-speech and information sharing, you must also be capable of accepting much of the above.

Personally, I think the above examples of information are not nearly as dangerous as some make them out to be - I'd rather live in a world where global transparency and honesty is more important than my personal safety - we stand a better chance of surviving the future that way.

Coming in second place was Atkray, responding to the head of the Directors Guild of America, Taylor Hackford, who claimed that Wikipedia going dark (though, easily circumventable) for 12 hours "robbed the public." Atkray put that into perspective:

How is it that if a site like Wikipedia is taken offline for a day by it's owners people are robbed, but if ICE takes sites without any due process it is acceptable?

I'd guess it's because the sites they take down are sites Hackford doesn't like. So in his world view, it's fine.

For editor's choice we've got blaktron with his response to the fear mongering in Congress about why we need cybersecurity legislation due to "threats to air traffic safety."

I'm pretty sure the most egregious threat to air traffic safety is putting the TSA in charge of it.

The RIAA and MPAA cannot exist unless they push for more and more legislation. That is their purpose.

Elected officials can't get campaign funds from Hollywood unless they also push for more and more legislation. That is how they get re-elected.

The only way they keep going is to keep making more rules. It doesn't matter if they're good or bad or necessary, but that you just keep pushing for more. That's how the system works. Lots of people are getting paid a lot of money to just keep pushing.

Hollywood learned its lesson in the 1950's witch hunts - pay the government off and you can do whatever you want. This is the result.

At this point any new law is probably bad or unnecessary, but there is no payout for repealing laws, no payout for easing off the legislation. There is only money for more laws.

Enough seriousness... let's move on to the funny. Coming in at the top of the pile was a mock (I hope) trolling from an Anonymous Coward that was pretty spot on for the type of trolling we get these days:

Piracy is a fuckin' problem and just to prove the point, wait til you see the drop in piracy now that we took down jotform.com.

For editor's choice, we'll start with another faux-troll, this time Prisoner 201, who responds to Peter Sunde's recent article about corruption in the Swedish judicial system by explaining why it's really all Peter's fault:

It is really Peter Sundes fault all of it.

If he hadn't stolen those mp3's, then WB would not have been forced to corrupt Sweden.

You have to be blind to not see it (or a pirate apologist) - it's the pirates own fault that major media companies have to corrupt law enforcement and politicians worldwide. They have no other choice if they want to keep their business models alive.

It's typical Mike McThief Masnick double-talk to point the blame anywhere but on himself and his fellow apologists that spearhead the destruction of culture.

The Wild West is ending, chubbies. Soon y'all have to get real jobs.

Amusingly, that comment got a lot of "report" clicks as well, so apparently it was so good that many people thought it was real.

And, my final editor's choice comment (and the one that did make me laugh out loud) was Rikuo, also responding to the Taylor Hackford story:

Re: Re: Re:

A better analogy. If we locked a troll in solitary confinement against its will and no one could hear it ... does that make the "troll" a wanna be troll? Is it possible for someone to aspire to be a troll one day?

Re:

Re:

There's a bit of requisite effort expected of both parties in an argument. When history indicates that only one party is presenting supporting information or applying reason, there is little need to continue to respect the other as a valid opponent.

Often it seems that these affairs shouldn't even be considered to be about differences of opinion, but about sorting fact from opinions and mistruth. The fact that you think this is a war of opinions evidences which side you're on.

Re:

Re: Re:

If you are the one making an assertion, your data should be beyond reproach. You shouldn't get upset if the other side asks about the validity of it. Heck, Mike has made a good part of his bones in the copyright world by trying to poke holes in industry reports and numbers.

So often, the other side doesn't have to bring supporting information, because they are able to poke holes in the reported information without putting anything else on the table.

Often, it is nothing more difficult than pointing out that the facts were narrowly selected, with other information from the same source, same report, or same story being ignored because it goes against the goal of the piece.

It's the way things roll around here. It's just too bad that nobody seems to be talking to each other anymore, it's just insults and mockery. The only way to get any attention seems to be the name calling. Mike sets the tone, and honestly, he deserves much of what he gets, in my opinion.

My Comment!

Hey look at that, my comment got most insightful - what an honor :)

To be fair though, that particular article got a lot of play in the news (I saw it show up on slashdot and osnews as well), and my comment was pretty close to the top. Sometimes there are some very insightful comments down lower that rarely get read...

Re:

Ouch indeed. This is to me the sort of thing Mike is unwilling to address without getting snide and making personal attacks on the writer. Clearly, this guy is actually living the deal, not just trying to make a living talking about it. Yet you won't see his story in Techdirt, except in a negative / slam piece.

Come on Mike, the artists are starting to speak. Doesn't this merit a "more and more artist are realizing" type post?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

This individual only expressed disappointment at the tenor of many comments made on this site, comments that foreclose any meaningful opportunity to engage in a thoughtful discussion. How this merits calling him a "liar" when he has expressed no substantive position on an issue completely escapes me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I do not believe it fair to use the word "cult", though I do believe it fair to say that far too many here are quick to agree with opinions expressed here without any investment of time to search out all sides of an issue.

For example, a recent reference was made to yet another study demonstrating that piracy is not harmful. It would have been nice to note, in the interest of fairness and full disclosure, that one of the authors of the study stated that the absence of harm was not borne out by their research.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Isn't that the first requirement of being in a cult?

Wrong... so so wrong.

Before you start blathering on about 'cult's' and what they are (they are not what you think they are) and what the requirements of one is, I suspect you need a refresher course in Social psychology with an emphasis on Group Dynamics.

:)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"yet you take Techdirt and Mike completely at their word, even though we have already shown that Mike is very good a cherry picking facts an ignoring reality."

The irony is strong with this one.

First, you have no idea whether I (because I can't speak for others) take Mike at his word, or in fact follow the links (always!) provided and make my own judgement based on several sources of info. You have no way of knowing how much or how little we take completely at his word, so your accusation is completely baseless. You claim it because you'd like it to be true, despite any evidence either way, which is true to form for most copyright supporters.

Second, you guys really need to get your heads around the fact that due to decades of lies, mistruths, exaggerations, dodgy accounting, attempting crippling of technology, disrespect for culture, and plain ol' abuse of artists and consumers alike, we no longer have any reason to trust those who put themselves in between creators and buyers and attempt to control markets for their own financial gain. Again, so it might sink in, WE DON'T TRUST YOU. Even if you all suddenly started behaving tomorrow, it would still take many, many years before you could build up any significant level of trust. Simply, you'll have to try much harder to convince me than Mike does.

Re: Wow

For anyone who hasn't read this article, it's quite a laugh. David Lowery explains how the new business model for selling records is a bad deal for artists.

The absolute funniest part is when he suggests that the average record deal pays the musicians 25%-30% of gross record sales and that this is not as good as the 70% an artists gets from iTunes if they are independent.

While Im sure that an average recording contract does have 25% in it somewhere, I seriously doubt that its 25% of gross sales. Its probably more like 25% of adjusted gross sales which in the end probably ends up more like 2%-5%.

I could barely finish the article because I was laughing so hard. It's filled with enough debunked info to keep Mike busy for months.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

yet you take Techdirt and Mike completely at their word, even though we have already shown that Mike is very good a cherry picking facts an ignoring reality.

It's amazing the stories that Mike ignores, only because there is no way he can positively spin all the stuff going on. Yet you trust him completely.

This is exactly the kind of comment we are talking about. Where is the evidence that you "have already shown that Mike is very good a cherry picking facts an ignoring reality"? Frankly I have never seen it.

Where are the "stories that Mike ignores" ? I haven't seen your links to them either.

It seems to me that all you do these days is to accuse our side of exactly the kind of behaviour that your side has been shown to be guilty of time and again throughout the ages. but without ever providing solid evidence.

Ke nny Rogers is a name that most of us would recognize. I had to google David Lowery. For the AC, I'll just post one quote from that article...

"In April of 2007, Kenny Rogers attempted to audit Capitol Records. However, because of a "purposefully complex and opaque royalty payment system," coupled with an inability to receive any documentation on digital sales, it took Rogers' auditing firm nearly two years to complete the process. "The accounting firm was unable to complete an initial audit report until March 9, 2009," the complaint read."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No the no harm was born out on the reality of the situation of the industry that despite claims to the contrary see raising revenues every freaking year.

It comes from the fact that piracy is nothing more than radio or TV and thus if it harmed anything it would have done so a long time ago and still the industry is willing to do payola schemes to get air time, giving away their product for free to the masses.

A lot of revenues comes today from B2B not from direct sales to consumers, even if the plastic disc disappeared tomorrow they still have those contracts.

No people don't need research to see with their own eyes, people don't need a research to tell them that the industry is full of shit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

yet you take Techdirt and Mike completely at their word, even though we have already shown that Mike is very good a cherry picking facts an ignoring reality.

It's amazing the stories that Mike ignores, only because there is no way he can positively spin all the stuff going on. Yet you trust him completely.

Isn't that the first requirement of being in a cult?"

love you're philosophy, ignore the bad, as long as their's good, i guess in this, we have a difference of opinion on how bad the bad stories are,

I come to this site, out of the thousands out there, to hear the opinions of other like minded people on this very subject, those who have lost faith in those who have the power to affect our daily lives, for the benefit of mega corporations, because 9 times out of ten, whats good for corporations, tend not to be good for the populace, if the problem stories where'nt there, there would be no need to look out for them, keep record, analyze, discuss and come to our own conclusions

The question i like answered, "What are you're posts trying to achieve?", writing the comments you do, you might be unregistered, but you're writing style and the constant theme of attack betrays you, to me, you're "that guy", constantly slandering mike in the hopes that people will see him for the "terrorist" he is, if you understood one ounce of the comments here, you'd know that, that method is probably the worst way you could have approached it

Im sure there are other sites that feel the same way as you do, perhaps you can comment there, and stand a better chance of communicating with people who feel the same way about a given subject
Dont get me wrong, im neither asking nor demanding here, if you can leave a thought provoking comment on a subject, then by all means......just stop with the discrediting of an author, because, i'll be blunt, you sound like you have a vested interest in GovCorps, following their playbook to the letter to the point that i have to ask
"What are you're posts trying to achieve?"

We have our own opinions, you have yours, you dont have to like ours, and we dont have to like yours, but we can still both listen, seee if there is merit in whats being said, ..........but, discrediting the way you do, for me throws everything you say out the window, because i have no trust in you being partial, because in this case, i do, strongly feel, that our entire system needs an entire overhaul